Americans don’t Understand Passenger Trains
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 พ.ค. 2021
- Go outside and touch train.
The Armchair Urbanist Series: • The Armchair Urbanist
My Patreon:
/ alanthefisher
Join the Discord here:
/ discord
My Twitter where I shitpost:
/ alanthefisher - บันเทิง
This video was meant to be viewed with my other Armchair Urbanist videos, as they go into more detail as to *why* trains disappeared and why Americans are left with the system that we have today. I did not state clearly in the video that this one builds off of the others, so that's my mistake. But please if you have the time, check the other ones out.
i find it hilarious that you tout california's trash moneysink failure of a high speed rail project. claiming that people just dont understand rail isnt a convincing argument so your whole video reeked of you having a serious superiority complex over others who dont agree with you just cus "they dont understand rail"
@@stevebob2941 All his videos are insane and myopic. He clearly has an anti-car fetish. Probably couldn't pass his driving test...
@@an_engineer Uh, it should be pretty easy to understand, it's in plain English.
😳 We have a system???
@@JM-fo1te I've ridden the Subway. In Manhattan. When I was 14. As a f*cking *tourist.* In the *seventies.*
Was kind of expecting an in-depth history on why passenger trains didn't take off in America, but then I realized this was a 5 minute video.
He has plenty of other vids that explain just that
They took off in America, on mass scale, it just lost momentum with the introduction of the highway system
@@thesouthernservesthesouth25 The day the USPS terminated the railroads mail contracts one by one, those passenger trains died. The railroads also demolished many of the stations and depots. The railroads had no intentions of paying property taxes on a building no longer being use. This two hour video deals with the demise of North Texas passenger trains, Dallas-Fort Worth, but applies nationwide. Can you imagine a metroplex of 5 million people not having any intercity passenger trains? th-cam.com/video/wj4k8qDAB8I/w-d-xo.html
lol I was so confused when the video ended......I literally thought he was still in the intro of the video....it was like "Americans don't understand trains, but they like places in Europe that have trains, but still Americans don't know how trains work, only a few places in the US have high speed trains....the end" lol ........no hate because I think he has a series of in depth videos as well, but this video is like me giving my 3rd grade book report presentation and boiling a book down to 30 seconds lol
@@samwalters1 yes, this video is mainly an intro to the series of other videos he has on his channel
why the youtube algorithm decided to take his least in-depth video and recommend it to the most people, I have no idea
The history of rail in Europe and the US is very, very different. In Europe rail was built to link existing cities and towns to each other. Much of the US rail system was to encourage the settling of the interior. Rail companies in the US were given huge areas of land not only to build a line but also to develop population centres in the interior.
There's a saying that on the East Coast, the cities built the rails but in the West the railroads built the cities. Where a railroad laid their tracks could determine the future fate of an area. Dallas, TX is a city that grew around a rail junction, for example.
yes and by and large that grid network of rails is still in operation as freight rail and still keeps many of those cities pumping
@@beartankoperator7950 it needs passenger trains
@@capmidnite damn
The right terminology is "to encourage colonialism on land, stolen from natives"
As a person living in India, it's almost unimaginable to see someone going long distances by road...cause if we have to cross 3-4 cities, we usually use trains. Heck, there are people who use trains daily just to go to their jobs
I would wager that the US has more miles of train track than India. Besides all the other issues with train based travel in the US, we move so much materials and goods by rail that passengers cannot economically compete for priority. In a decent number of place in the US it is actually slower to travel by train than it is to drive because the train will have to stop so often to allow cargo to get by.
@@prind142 no, India is at first position as long as train tracks are concerned..and your reasoning is not that good tbh. Every country has trains for goods and i don't see a reason why it'll be hard to implement in US..
@@prind142 lol, I'm 100% sure, you know Nothing about india other than 2 slum streets shown In news, or dancing people.. I'm sure the day you do little research about modern indian cuties it will blow out your mind.
@@peeyushverma2284 India rail total length of tracks: 123,000 km. US total length of tracks: 257,000 km. In 2000 US rail moved 2,390 billion ton kilometers, that same year the entire European union only moved 304 billion ton kilometers. We do more in an hour than entire nations do in a year.
@@prind142 before you start saying how better you do...start by thinking about the area of your country and the others...when thinking about how much people you benefit, you should take into account the population density and ease of rail access...
EU is so small compared to US..it's not even comparable..why would they be needing to match you in that respect.
i think you underestimate just how impressive a functioning public transit system is to someone who doesn't normally have access to one.
getting to experience a reliable bus, metro, and passenger train system for the first time were *the* most fond memories i had when visiting a metropolis and a european country. i couldn't shut up about how cool it was that i didn't have to rent a car to just take a daytrip to a different town, and that i could go bar-hopping downtown and still get home safely.
it was also clear that the cities were much more bikeable and walkable, once i realize the town wasn't blazingly hot, designed for pedestrians, and not filled with hostile car drivers who roll coal on you.
i wasn't even a transit nerd, not in the slightest. i was just excited about a positive experience in which it was obvious transit accessibility was one of the major factors in my being able to have a good.
I agree. I was sent to Germany for my first duty station. I absolutely loved the public transportation there. There was no need to have a car. I was amazed by how convenient and cheap the Strauss baum or street rail system was there, as well as the train travel. For less than $10, I could use the inner city street car system all day. And for around $30 I could ride the ICE train to Paris. A lot cheaper and more convenient than driving your personal car. That's definitely one of the biggest things I miss about Europe and wish our public transportation systems were half as good.
I heard of a tale from England, A town mayor, dissatisfied with the road he drove on every day to come to town, decided they needed a major upgrade.
To get this approved, he had to have a referendum with the town's people. In doing this he had to provide at least one alternative, so he chose the rail line.
The referendum was run, and to his dismay, the majority voted for the railway!
People probably didn't know the cost difference between those two options. If it went straight out of their pockets they would likely reconsider their choice.
@@ligametis agreed and his road in the country was probably improved eventually and they had to pay for that as well
@@ligametis only if it’s in the franchised rail era where the profit goes to business owners.
People don’t seem to understand that rail always makes profit in the long term
@@christianwhittall5889 No, rail definitely doesn't make profit in the long term if you build it everywhere. There is a reason why tons of smaller rail connections were lost after WW2. In the past even small towns often had narrow gauge rail or even tiny airports.
Sorry to say, that's likely either apocryphal or from some other country. We don't use referenda to decide such matters and never have (what do you think we are, a democracy?), and major infrastructure projects (including all railway lines) have always been managed by the national government, not "town mayors".
As an Aussie I cry for a high-speed rail link, at least for the big eastern cities. If we had it we could stop a huge amount of flying
Maybe, but the distances are huge. Its not like Europe where there are multimillion population cities every direction easily encouraging travel
That's one huge train line though, would cost an absurd amount of money.
@@salokin3087 in many places in Europe also smaller towns are still connected to HSR, not only the super large cities
@@salokin3087 A Melbourne to Sydney line to start off would run under 800km, serve multiple regional towns and cities, connect the two largest population centres to the capital and operate on a route with known high demand, since Melbourne to Sydney is the second busiest air corridor in the world.
Notably a line that ran through Melbourne, Shepperton, Wangaratta, Albury, Wagga Wagga, Yass, Goulburn, Bowral, Wollongong and finally Sydney with a small splinter line built from Yass to Canberra would serve to help grow some regional centres as people would be able to work in these smaller rural cities and still reach Melbourne, Sydney or Canberra.
This section of line makes all the sense in the world. It's not crazy long, there's known demand and express trains could compete with Mel/Syd flights, it's running through the population centre of Australia and also the three most bureaucratically important cities. It would also build off pre-existing infrastructure since it follows the M-31, which would make construction far easier. Assuming the Mel/Syd line was successful you could then talk about expansions to Brisbane.
The rail link is feasible, even the Rudd report showed that. We just need a poli to actually start building the line rather than commissioning another useless report on the feasibility.
the distances in queensland are small enough
and the population large enough
for this reality to occur
(gold coast up to sunshine coast)
My husband is from Germany. He lived there for decades without a driver's license or a car, because he simply didn't need them. When I was there, it was rather fun exploring the country via passenger trains and subways (Berlin). Moving to the U.S forced my husband to obtain his driver's license, but whenever we can, we take passenger trains, which is rare in the PNW. We can really only do so in Seattle or Portland. I think that a lot of people would use them if they existed. But as long as they don't, we will just continue on down path of over clogged streets, pollution, bad drivers and road rage.
Live in Norway, same story here. I'm 36 and don't have a car or even a driver's license. I get around with public transport and if I need something I can't carry myself, I just arrange to have it delivered to me.
French here, same no driver license and no car.
And Germany is a country of 83 million people in a country the size of Montana. Washington state and Oregon combined have a population of 10 million.
Exactly
@@capmidnite and?
I once waited in line in Vienna and behind me was this Californian dude talking about his experiences in Europe and he actually said "So many new things. Never been on a train before" :-o (Not to play into stereotypes - it wasn't his fault for not having trains available and he sounded genuinely happy to have made the discovery). That was in 2013, so things may have changed a bit.
I'm in Nebraska, the very middle of the country, and our passenger rail is painfully expensive. Its cheaper and faster to drive cross-country than take a train. Which is absurd. My favorite part about visiting China was being able to just take a train everywhere. It was so convenient.
He must have been from rural California or just so inculcated in car culture that it never occurred to him to ride one. The Bay Area in Northern California has a fairly decent commuter rail system between BART, CalTrain, ACE and Amtrak for long distance travel. There's some commuter rail service in the LA area that's not extensive.
_"That was in 2013, so things may have changed a bit"_
*It hasn't.*
@@archstanton5973 I am from EU and I have never taken a train, it's not as common as you make it out to be my guy.
@@archstanton5973 It's worse
I was kinda expecting you to explain how trains work for all of the people who don't understand how trains work, instead of just saying they don't understand how trains work over and over.
The thesis of the video was suppose to be that most Americans have never ridden a train, thus they have no idea how to implement them or what they're capable of. The video wasn't meant to expand further past that, but I see your point.
The main reason why I didn't include more in *this* video is because I have a few other videos touching on the same subjects going more into depth, and I felt like I would be repeating myself by doing the same in this one.
@@alanthefisher Seeing how this is the very first of one of your vids that I've seen, at least making a reference to those other vids would have helped.
@@lgkfamily It's mentioned at 5:12, although I forgive people for stopping the video after "Thanks for watching" as I do most of the time.
Yes, just smugly repeating the premise over and over doesn’t really address the issue. I’m a train fan but obviously I don’t understand how trains work since i was just told that many times in the last few minutes.
@@alanthefisher I got your inference but Tim Trzepacz was correct. You still should have directly stated it at least once that "most Americans have never ridden a train", so they do not appreciate their capables"
"Understanding Passenger Trains" is just a is a vague and nebulous construct.
FWIW most ppl have no idea how to "implement" the systems of roads and highways they drive on either... That goes for most train riders too, who do not know or care how the systems was built.
It's very strange to me- a Brit- that there are people who have never been on a train before, let alone see them every day, and use them regularly. I'm a 17 minute walk from my nearest train station, and it serves my town of 104,000 in the South East with 7 trains hourly, taking between 45 and 90 minutes to get to central London. Indeed, even in the UK, I've heard people herald their driving license as their ticket to freedom, but using the trains independently since 13 years old, it's a well connected, well run, frequent, and fast rail system that truly grants freedom.
I grew up in the Philadelphia area in the US and have been using trains my entire life with our local and intercity trains. I moved to another city, and I still am taken aback when folks tell me they never rode a train or they rode the train once when they were a kid. Outside of certain areas of the US, trains are seen as some sort of fascinating novelty because they barely exist, if they exist at all.
I live two hundred miles away from a Amtrak route that runs daily, mind you in the second most populous state...
@@aabb55777 .
Europeans mostly have lifestyles designed for humans not cars.
@@aabb55777 living between suburbs is a very American peculiarity, driven by the near-worship of the automobile. Look before the 1950s and you'll see a USA not all that different to Western Europe at the time. The way we get around changes everything.
@@aabb55777 Your rail is shit because of bad public policy and stupid voters, not because rail is inherently shit. Instead of bitching about a system that works literally everywhere else not being sufficient, you should try actually enacting sensible policy and investment that works.
I grew up in Jacksonville Florida. Public transportation has always been pretty non-existent there. This lack of public transportation, along with people experiences with it, shaped my early view. I had alot of the same excuses that people have with why we shouldn't install more public transportation. I was team car all the way: More road expansion. More parking lots. Less public transportation.
Then I got to visit Tokyo in 2015 for 6 days and my ENTIRE view on public transportation changed. I went from being pro-car to pro-public transportation overnight. I was able to get from the airport to the hotel absolutely no problem. And from there, the literal ENTIRETY of Tokyo was accessible to me. All I had to do was google maps a location I wanted to go to and it was a leisure walk to the station, a leisure ride over, and blam I was there. I was able to get from the Shinjuku district to Disney Sea stress free in less than 1 hour.
And the best part was, I could show up anytime to any station and be on board a train within minutes.
To answer the nay-sayers already flying above my posts: It doesn't have to be a national network. I get it. The middle of the US is empty. Would never be worth it.
But you can't tell me that there are parts of the US where a train network would be very feasible. Here, I'll even list them for you:
DC to Boston
Atlanta to Raleigh
The rust best
Portland to Seattle
The Bay area to San Diego
Texas Tri cities
Orlando to tampa
Denver
a large portion of these already exist, even if its crappy. but sleeper trains will work fine for routes like chicago to denver because they wont notice the long hours asleep. also nationalize greyhound and run buses in the interior, thats all they need
I have taken the train once.. it was lovely. But I live in California and the train and it’s schedule is purposefully designed to be useless.
The amtrak here is so depressing. Its extra sad because I live and work next to the Amtrak stations in two different towns and I would love to be able to ride it to work but the train only comes through once daily.
@@-yake- it’s also f*ing expensive, it’s ridiculous :/
Thank you for pointing that out, I live in the high valley suburbs of Lancaster and Metrolink is the only train we have. For geographic context, Lancaster is a city situated in the middle of the DESERT surrounded by nothing in an 80mile radius...and we've only got ONE train.
@@commissarthorne3894 metrolink is sometimes a life saver tho 🤌😩
@@commissarthorne3894 I loved the one time I got to take Metrolink, but it had homeless people on it, and it took 2h 30m to get to la
This video gave me a whole new perspective. I lived in New Jersey my whole life and I never realized just how rare high-speed rail was in the US. As a kid, I was always used to the fast amtrak trains buzzing by my neighborhood and and how often my family took the train. Great stuff
Living in NYC, I can't imagine a life where I can't just take the train to go pretty much anywhere that I need to go.
@@trijetz3562 *US car culture*
New Jersey doesn't even have high speed rail though.
@@lifeinguangdong5844 no but we do have passenger rail at all, unlike most other places in the us
@@lifeinguangdong5844 the clips of high speed rail in this video were taken in New Jersey..
I was going to nitpick the "No Trains" map. But then I saw the zoomed in version, and saw that my city (St. Louis) was carefully excluded from the blue section due to the route to Chicago - the one rail route in the US I've managed to use.
Holy crap I just commented on this lol
Fantastic job Illinois did speeding up that rail line to St. Louis from Chicago 20 minutes... You can still drive that distance nearly an hour quicker... Dinah Shore sold a lot of Chevrolets... th-cam.com/video/qhR8GZ_WWMM/w-d-xo.html
Lived in Germany for 3 years courtesy of Uncle Sam and I do realize the value of trains in the right circumstance, high population densities helps to support the trains.
We tried the Amtrak from STL (Kirkwood) to Hermann, MO and the experience TO Hermann was excellent. Left and arrived on-time.
The return trip exposed a weakness Amtrak faces, they own little to no road. They were at the mercy of the freight lines who actually own the roads they run on. (I believe UP owns the lines these trains run on.)
When your delays are longer than the actual projected time for the run, it's hard to make the case that passenger rail, as it's currently run is an efficient choice when all factors are considered. Time is a valuable resource and if Amtrak cannot consistently meet their projected times, it's hard to recommend rail travel at this time.
Compare this with my German and Swiss experiences when you can practically set your watch based on the train movements and one can see the challenges to US rail travel.
Well that and getting mugged on the MetroLink.
Or the Loop Trolley, LOL.
@@ronclark9724 shame your rail is shit, in most places the trains can run at 100mph without problems because they own the track they run on
@@buffuniballer It's kind of a circular issue. If they had more trains running, they could afford to either buy a bigger share or just build their own rails improving the experience and reliability. But to do that, they'd first have to improve those so they can afford running more trains.
There's a major difference here, though; the german railway is still partially a public enterprise and runs nearly all of the railways both for freight and passenger, so they don't really have to worry about it. If they want to run a train, the only thing they need to consider is scheduling, the rails are theirs anyway.
Believe me, I understood why Japan was so pleasant to be in because of their amazing rail system. I totally fell in love with Japanese trains and miss them terribly.
Name checks out
When you have 125 million people crammed into a country the size of California, rail travel makes sense. And interestingly, the legendary Shinkansen system ends at Fukuoka in Kyushu, doesn't even serve Shikoku and was extended into Hokkaido only in the last decade or so.
@@capmidnite excuses afer excuses
@@rituwebpro The USA is the largest economy in the world while the Japanese economy has stagnated in the past 20 years. This implies capital and resources are bing allocated effectively in the USA, and the entire transportation system overall is serving the needs of the American economy.
@@capmidnite more excuses wow
In the early 1990's it was cheaper to ride a train from Denver to Seattle than it was to fly. I rode, Denver - Boise, Denver - San Francisco, Denver - Portland / Seattle, not just for leisure but for cost. It was wonderful. Now its a lot more expensive to take the same trips by rail than fly. Kind of sad.
It actually depresses me how unlikely it seems that were I live will ever actually have a decent transit system. People always like “it’s not dense enough to justify trains”. Not it’s not dense enough precisely because we don’t use trains and everyone needs a car which requires space for parking which makes cities unwalkable which makes cars even more required which... It’s a feedback loop of inefficient transit and land use.
There areas that are perfectly fine for trains. Not the entire US is made for trains, but then not every village in France has the TGV.
@@LMB222 Obviously the TGV doesn't serve everywhere, but France has a much wider rail network aside from the TGV services.
@@LMB222 Much of the US was designed for trains, and then re-designed to force car dependence. There was a lot of corruption involved.
It’s a little different than that. But lobbying against railroads by the automobile industry and aviation industry is apart of it. As parking spaces do not really affect walking spaces on cities and most major cities in the United States have sub terrain transit or a combination of subways and express trains. Mostly in the United States where railroad transit is seeing major growth again is in areas where high speed rail offers riders a faster form of transit than an airplane or car ride can to an intermittently distanced destination.
got it in one.....:-)
Being from New Jersey, I almost exclusively use NJ Transit to get to NYC, and of course when in the city I use the subways. I honestly cannot fathom not having a train to get to and from a metropolis city like NYC and having to exclusively drive a car and deal with ridiculous traffic and high parking fees at garages
i wish i lived in NJ
I cannot express the infinite irritation of living in Japan for four months only to return to Birmingham AL. I went from being able to go anywhere with just a little pocket change or my train pass to being totally dependent on other people for transportation....
I thought the UK has decent trains?
@@aaravtulsyan oh probably. But I was talking about Birmingham, Alabama in the United States. Named after Birmingham, England in the UK due to the rain and iron content.
@@Radhaun didn't know there was a Birmingham outside the UK lol
@@aaravtulsyan xD I feel like the US copied everyone else's homework when it came to naming a lot of things.
@@Radhaun ...but on the other hand: I've always admired the British nation for their obsession with America. So many cities & towns in the U.K. are named after American cities & towns!!!
The biggest issue I see in the US: even if passenger trains would connect smaller villages and towns to larger towns and cities, there's still a lack of local public transit to actually cover both the doorstep to station distance and the station to your destination distance as well. That circumstance makes taking the train much less relevant and interesting...
Local transport can be created around the trains plus e scooters can fill the gaps
@@qjtvaddict e scooters are great for shorter distances, but in order to get half-way through the city I prefer rather bus, tram, subway or commuter trains
Good luck ever integrating door to door public transit considering America’s urban planning. Remember our cities are nothing like other countries cities. The US model of urban planning is well let’s just say a special case which is why cars are for door to door making the train no different than taking the plane other than being both slower and more expensive.
Build last mile service. Available from every station. Think how many good jobs that would be to train, dispatch, service all of that. Add on fee on the transit ticket, have a discount fee.
@@laelwhite5331 if only it was ever that simple. Lots of US cities already have some form of commuter rail, but are still mostly useless. Just building it doesn’t solve the problem, it does nothing but throw more money at the problem hoping for a solution. The real problem is density and how American cities are planned.
There was a time in the US where train lines went everywhere. However, the age of the automobile prompted the derailing of the US.
We have more railways for the use of Freight than we do for people. Both Freight for Trains and Trucks are understaffed too. Trucking is a little easier to get into and doesn't require a long contract.
Honestly you could still take the train to many places but you can drive faster then why go by train.
alice, how was the USA derailed? our GDP is the highest in the world.
Private companies have always done long distance high speed better. But they transitioned to aircraft for this purpose decades ago because they are a lot faster and much easier to add and change routes.
Basically trains are good as public transit within a city and maybe 200 miles radius (if you have a high speed train that can actually average 150 miles per hour).
there is an interesting video on youtube that shows how in Italy, short commuter flights are being phased out because high speed rail is much more effective. No fooling with baggage checks and delays, etc, etc. The auto barons and oil mafia, along with the airlines have conspired and lobbied against anything and everything rail and I along with millions of others are sick of it. The car doesnt represent the same freedom that it did to the brainwashed baby boomer generation. We need a balanced transportation system in America, not total and complete car centricism.
I've ridden the shinkansen tokaido line a couple times before. I could get up and walk around all I wanted. No lengthy security, boarding and unboarding processes. It was great. I would much rather take one of those cross-state than any toll road.
I think a lot of people just don’t understand the realities of living in the middle US. I travel frequently between two cities about 260 miles apart. The nearest train station is 40 miles from my house and on the other end of the line the station is about 20 miles from the place where I’m going. There is one train per day that goes between the two cities. It goes one way in the morning and returns the other way in the afternoon. So for me to want to ride the train, I’ve got to be able to leave around noon, drive into the train station, park in the garage at $15 per day, buy a ticket for about $80 round-trip, ride the train which is about a four or five hour ride, arrive, and then find transportation to my final destination on the other end, and then do the opposite on the way back.
Alternately, I can just drive, leaving whenever I want and returning whenever I want and spending about $100 in gas. I can also take as many people as I want with me and it still cost about the same as one ticket on the train. In addition I don’t have to pay to park and I have a vehicle to drive when I get there.
Of course I know it can be made better. But you can’t invest in rail if nobody is going to use it, and you can use it without the investment in rail. We are not Europe. Its some thing like 5000 km from Los Angeles to New York City. And the distances are only one of the challenges.
My friends: "I can't wait until we get high speed rail where we live! 60 - 80mph would be great!"
Me: "Steam locomotives of the 1920's would regularly break 120mph"
I read an article today about a “high speed” line proposal to connect cities in North Carolina to Virginia, and I though wow! They’re actually trying to build high speed there? Is this for real?
Then it mentions in the article that trains would travel up to 110 mph…
I mean, baby steps, I guess. Gotta start somewhere
@@duncanmcauley7932 110mph with regular trains could probably allow 130mph with tilt trains so I guess it's better? But 110mph is still good and it's better than no train
This video is Abit late do to mental blocks and scheduling issues, but anyway enjoy!
Edit: also the onlyfans will become real once the channel hits 100k lol
Enters the Alan Fisher onlyfans
*It's just hot pics trolleybus poles and train pantographs*
😳
This video is a little insulting. It makes the assumption it's all a matter of people just don't understand". That's not the reality. Many people understand how rail works, just fine and have plenty f experience with it. They just DON'T LIKE rail travel. No to mention part of the issue is that at the destinations, most places are not dense enough to be just dropping off rail passengers with no way to get around locally after their trip.
Also, many people do not like living in dense areas, and like the extra space of suburban surroundings that are better navigated with personal vehicles.
Many people really DO prefer the independence that a personal vehicle provides.
Collectivized transport like rail and buses are unpleasant and crowded frequently, or don't operate on a good schedule.
Hey, if you like rail, take rail. But please don't insult those who don't. We understand rail well enough.
@@peterbelanger4094 ok
@@peterbelanger4094 No. You DON'T understand rail. If you did, you'd realize the benefits of it; you'd understand that it is not meant to take cars away from you, it is meant to provide an option to travel from your suburban environment to a city and then go back to your suburban environment. It is meant as an option to sitting in soul-crushing traffic or dealing with airports. It is also meant to help economic activity; as cities contribute to a high GDP, and as suburbs contribute by providing people, goods and services to cities to provide that high GDP, it is beneficial to BOTH cities AND suburbs. But hey, if you like to do all that, then do it. But stop voting against rail projects and stop preventing the rest of us who understand the importance of rail from having that option.
That high-speed train passing just really hits the spot. When you're actually on the platform it's such a visceral experience.
It's so weird to read that as a German. High Speed Trains are so normal to me...
Yeah, you get used to it.
@@SteamCheese1 High speed trains are "normal" to me too, I still love the impact of one of those passing by at high speeds with a metre distance.
pantograph arcing like a boss for the finishing touch. POWWAH.
Being on one is even better.
I live in Scotland and Ive never even had to learn to drive as the trains are so good. I would love to do a railtrip across the US one day if its even possible.
It is but it will.be expensive
@@zyancuerdo8367 car infrastructure is also expensive. Some argue more expensive than trains. Do some research on how much we spend to maintain and build freeways.
@@youweremymuse im talking about how much he will pay for a transcontinental train trip across the us
@@youweremymuse Why don't you do some research on TH-cam etiquette, there Susie.
Where do you live in Scotland, I live here too and still need a car, the trains here are good but I wouldn't say they are amazing just average
Same for Canada. Most of our population lives in the Windsor to Quebec city corridor that is perfect for highspeed train and yet nothing.
Another issue is transit being built AROUND the car instead of around people. An example is GO Transit in Toronto where stations and trains are built around around massive parking lots instead of around transit hubs or housing developments.
Canada doesn't really have a population
@@murphy7801 the 37 million inhabitants occupying canada: 😐
@@murphy7801 the fuck?
@@murphy7801 Would you not consider the 18 million people living in the Quebec City-Windsor corridor to be a significant population in a relatively small area?
Even Japan doesn't have high speed rail everywhere. The Shinkansen terminates at Fukuoka in Kyushu and doesn't run in Shikoku. It was only extended to Hokkaido in 2016. In other words, it is has to be viable and there's are reasons why high speed rail isn't built even though you might think it's a natural fit to wherever you live.
Americans think trains are like buses, you wait on the side of a road somewhere for late service that makes you wish you were driving yourself.
In actuality trains are like a series of waiting rooms that give you time to do some reading or writing and then, with basically no effort or stress, you find yourself where you wanted to be.
It's really hard to overstate how absurdly comfortable a heavy vehicle on literal rails is, even when you're going significantly faster than highway speed. And there's usually a lot more space than you get with air travel.
Trains are really supposed to compete with planes, but they really can’t, they just aren’t as fast or cheap enough. American cities are generally farther from each other so in terms of speed the plane wins, trains are also very expensive so in terms of cost the plane also wins.
If we are talking about metro rails the lots of American cities do have some form of them, but they are just next to useless compared to the car. Due to America’s urban planning it’s far easier to travel by car than by rail as American cities generally aren’t dense and are huge with urban and suburban sprawl with Euclidean zoning make any and every distance unwalkable.
Also this huge area of the country is where literally no one lives and has vast stretches of emptiness.
@@blackhole9961 no ones saying that trains should take over routes like NYC-Los Angeles. But the majority of travel in America is within their own state (or even just their own city really). A train from the suburb to the downtown would be far more efficient and environmentally friendly than everyone driving everywhere
@@beneyweneys here’s 2 problems with that.
1st: America’s urban planning not allowing for compact dense walkable cities. If you think public transit could serve America’s suburbs your dead wrong. Lots of foreigners come with the assumption American cities are just like their or NYC so they think they are comparing apples to apples when that is not the case. Lots of America’s cities do have some form of public transit, they are just next to useless because of how far spread out everything is.
2nd: America’s car culture accepts 4-6 hours driving as completely normal to get to the next major city as that’s just how far it is mostly and your going to need a car to get around anyways, this automatically just eliminated the short 1 hour corridor high speed rail would serve. Anything after around 6 hours is flying distance for the average American but even then we are still willing to drive past 6 hours sometimes. Because the plane is generally faster than the high speed train this would make it fail, there is no middle ground for the train to serve.
@@blackhole9961 idk as someone that lives in Houston theres a pretty common sentiment that a high speed rail to Dallas would be amazing because driving down the traffic hell that is i-45 for 6 hours sucks ass. and getting to, in, and out of the airport also sucks for various reasons and takes way too long for it to be feasible or worth the cost. and, as he said in the vide, you can do shit on the train. i can watch a movie or get some work done. cant do that while driving. driving that distance also isn't free, because you have to pay for gas. youre gonna be paying half of a plane/train ticket in gas anyway.
high speed rail is by far the best form of transport between two metro areas like that. or LA and SF/San Diego. Or NYC to Boston, or Philly, or D.C. Or Chicago to Cleveland, or indianapolis, or Milwaulkee, etc.
@@zRhid as a person who lives in the DFW area I don’t think the train will be all that different than the plane.
Driving down i45 definitely does not take 6 hours it’s 4 hours at best or 3 1/2 if you live in south Dallas.
In terms of luxury yes the train has the plane beat. But in terms of speed and overall cost which are the most important deciding factors then the plane still takes the cake being 30 minutes faster and also likely cheaper.
Also wouldn’t it not matter how early you arrive at the airport or train station if both plane and train had the same departure time which do you think is making it to its destination first?
What are you going to do after you get off the train? Rent a car? That’s very expensive you may as well would have driven the extra 3 hours to save yourself money.
When a train station opened from my city to San Francisco I was like "cool I can go there when ever I want now!". then I found out it didn't go all the way into the city and was take the train to a bus stop then a ferry. Noped right out of that idea.
I think BART is one of the most expensive subway systems in the USA in terms of ticket price cost / per distance (or stations) travelled.
you're in the North Bay? yeah the Golden Gate Bridge in theory could take trains on it. BART tried to push for that in the 70s but the Golden Gate Bridge District strongly insisted that rail not go across the Golden Gate. What you can do is take the bus across the bridge. Or you might be able to connect to BART going around the east bay and take the TransBay Tube into SF but that would probably take longer.
Don't worry soon you'll be able to hope on a eVTOL at your nearest small airport (I think Marin has a municipal airport?) and fly across to SF. :)
Joby is based in Santa Cruz and is one of several companies working on this. The e stands for electric...these are battery powered aircraft. :)
www.jobyaviation.com
just build a new and better bridge.
@@certaindeath7776 golden gate is already the best in the world :)
Mars mech you are in North bay? It would be smart train -> golden gate transit bus -> now you're in sf
(Or smart train and the just walk across the golden gate Bridge but bus is prob faster)
@@neutrino78x "golden gate is already the best in the world :)" true
I still find it incredible that the majority of US urban planning is sacrificed to the car and that there's almost no public transport of note. I experienced it myself when I visited Florida while bumming around the world and I struggled to walk from my motel to an iHop a few hundred yards away. No sidewalks or paths, no pedestrian crossings, nothing but multi-lane roads and plots surrounded by vast asphalt car parks.
I live in Tokyo. Trains everywhere. Tons of subways - actually two subway companies with multiple lines each. Lots of Japan Rail trains. Various private railways. There's even an old streetcar line that still operates. EVERYone takes the train, whether they have a car, motorcycle, bicycle, or any other vehicle.
You can say the same about NYC. A subway that runs 24 hours because it has double tracks running in each direction.. Various train lines such as LIRR, Amtrak, Acela, PATH, NJ Transit. Numerous busses, taxis and Uber.
If you live in Tokyo then you'd know residents can't own a car unless they show they own a parking space.
@@capmidnite NYC's transit system is pretty extensive, but it's just a fraction of the size of Tokyo's. Are you talking to me about parking spaces? Why? Did I say anything about that?
@@alukuhito NYC subway system: "Overall, the system contains 248 miles (399 km) of routes, translating into 665 miles (1,070 km) of revenue track and a total of 850 miles (1,370 km) including non-revenue trackage." Also: The annual ridership is about 1.3 billion. (Wikipedia) So what "fraction" of this system is that of Tokyo's subway system. 10%? 20%? 30%?
@@alukuhito The point about parking spaces is that many Tokyo residents have no choice but to take the transit system. Parking is hellish in NYC too but many residents park on the street. Owning a car is the freedom to leave the city at 4 AM if necessary and be somewhere else such as the mountains, beach or another city in an hour.
After moving from the US to the UK, I can’t express in words how nice it is to buy a ticket easily online, hop on a spacious train, and watch the landscape roll by to your destination.
Plus train stations make you feel like a king when you arrive, airports make you feel like livestock
You mean US airports other airports in civilized countries treat you much better
@Bruno Lora most American train stations are the exception to this lol
@@qjtvaddict you do realize that not every airport in the US is like JFK or LAX right? Both DFW and Denver put these both to shame along with Miami Orlando Vegas Phoenix and a multitude of others.
@Bruno Lora New train hall tho tbf
Not only that, having frequent train service is amazing. I was in Zurich once and had to go to Basel to catch a flight... I was worried that trains were more like Amtrak California in that they only had trains on 90-180 minute frequencies if that. No need to worry; there were at least four trains an hour plying that route, and most destinations in Switzerland had at least a train an hour if not more.
think about this:
Houston is the 4th largest US city by population and 9th by area, but it a dinky little station underneath i45 that sees 1 - 2 trains a week. Which is unfortunate because of how many good reviews it has.
wow that's crazy ... even my village of 10,000 inhabitants here in Germany sees more trains per hour
I live a few cities over from Zurich, which has only 400k inhabitants, but a train station that serves about 2 trains per minute (over 2900 per day). It's the Swiss equivalent to a 20 lane highway. The daily passenger count exceeds Zurich's population and even with 26 tracks, one delayed train can cause congestion.
Once you get to Houston, you STILL have to drive to your destination in Houston...
@@ffjsb yeah houston is frickin big
Huston needs 2 things to make rail viable
1. Density in housing and commercial space
2. A unified transportation system that feeds passengers from one to the other
As somebody who lives very close to a tramstop, I couldn't recommend rail-based public transportation more. It's just so good!
As someone that has always lived in the blue area, I was once in that area in Colorado and noticed a passenger train and was amazed that it existed.
Trains are awesome, but every big transit project turns into a billion dollar boondoggle. The labor costs for East Side Access are astronomical, it's costing upwards of 10 billion dollars, and it's still years away from opening. California High Speed Rail is an even bigger disaster, who knows when they'll actually finish the full scope of that project...
Now I might be thinking of the wrong one or mistaken but if I remember correctly the california high speed rail project got canned due to over budget. However I might be mistaken on that one
@@cynicalarcher7075 probably just inaccurate reporting. Because it was so over budget they significantly reduced the length of the train so it no longer connect San Fran to Los Angeles.
yeah our ca hsr is such a joke. The first mistake they made was to veer 20 miles off course and go down highway 99 instead of I-5 or 101, which would have been more direct north-south routes. Plus those two have wider median strips so they could just build the train down the median, instead of having to buy up a lot of people's farms. 2nd mistake, even after they reduced the scope due to no funding (after the project mismanaged funding so much), in the Initial Operating Segment, which is 171 miles, they already have a total of five stops, including the beginning and end. I can see one in the middle but not three.
The French SNCF (the TGV agency) and Japanese JRA (Shinkansen/bullet train) were both interested in helping out, but when they found out about the route being political, (went down 99 to go through all those small towns in hopes that more of those people would vote for it, even though they're culturally conservative and wouldn't vote for it anyway), they dropped out.
SNCF said the ONLY way to get private investors to help fund it would have bene to go down I-5 and the CA High Speed Rail Authority refused to do that.
Complete and utter boondoggle. Maybe in 20 years it will finally be completed all the way down to LA. And that's just Phase 1, it was SUPPOSED to go to San Diego eventually.
Now, there is a plan to enhance Amtrak California, which includes the San Juaquins train that goes through the central valley and then the Capitol Corridor and Surfliner trains, that go between the bay area and San Diego, and upgrade them to go 125 MPH max. That's planned to occur anyway and will be a LOT cheaper. We should have just called that California High Speed Rail.
I'm proud I voted "no" on CA HSR. :)
@@neutrino78x Well, the issue is that it's the California High Speed Rail system, not the Los Angeles to San Francisco Rail System. IE, they are trying to serve as much of the state as possible with the system. This meant the change in routing as you mentioned, and lots of stops (of course not all trains will stop at every station; some will be express trains). If it's merely the Los Angeles to San Francisco Rail System, then screw it, just take a plane and don't build the thing at all. There's minimal point, on an economic, political, or practical level, to not have a whole bunch of stops on the route. That is, what you are proposing would never have even started construction.
@@Geotpf well, the private sector already does a great job with aircraft, I agree. HSR is "nice to have" not "needed for high speed travel". Which is one of many reasons I voted no, since it is not really a necessity, 33 billion is far too much to spend on this, and 80 or 100 billion is WAY TOO MUCH.
The routing was for POLITICAL reasons not technical ones. That's nothing to be proud of. All it did was slow everybody down and make it no longer HSR.
They should have put it down I-5, and Fresno could have a spur off I-5 (a terminal where vehicles go from Fresno to Sacramento or Fresno to SJ or Fresno to LA), so vehicles going from say San Jose to LA can maintain high speed in that area.
I have visited the US regularly for reasons of business and on one of those trips I found myself in Minneapolis. The discussion with the company took a day longer than anticipated, so I missed my scheduled flight to New York were I would stay with my wife for a long week-end. When I informed my American partners that we had decided to go by train instead, it went quiet for a few seconds.... It wasn't an option they had ever considered and probably never would.
Passenger trains were phased out by pressure and lobbying from big oil and the auto-industry. Government support and subsidies went away. When I was a kid, there was still passenger service in much of the blue area.
@@topixfromthetropix1674 No they weren't. Passenger trains died for the simple reason that people choose not to use them. They went away for the same reason the 'full service' pumps went away at gas stations. Passenger trains are mostly missed by 1%ers who enjoyed the idea of full service transportation, with a domestic servant class catering to their whims and travel largely excluded to the upper class, suit wearing, hat and glove wearing social class they romanticize.
@@celebrim1
You definitely sound like one of the many Americans who don't understand trains. Trains within a city have not been full service like that anywhere in the world in your lifetime or even your grandparent's lifetimes. Trains between cities can get a little fancy, but are usually no fancier than an economy class flight complete with maybe one substandard meal included in the ticket price on long trips. Maybe.
Trains are the transportation system for the masses.
@@OriginalPiMan "The masses" never refer to themselves as "the masses". Bit of a tell there.
I get it. Trains suck now and you want them back. If only "the masses" knew what was good for them.
"Have you ever skipped off across the pond and wondered why you enjoyed yourself so richly in the old country? Let me tell old bean, it was the trains!"
Yes, I'm sure you want trains "for the masses".
Also, my grandparents were born in like 1919. So, a bit of another tell there kiddo.
@@celebrim1
I'm currently single and unemployed; my parents never earned even average wages and I will probably never beat the average either. "The masses" was a convenient term that came to mind, not a hint to some secret hidden wealthy background I may have.
I stand by what I said about your grandparents. In the early 20th century, trains were simply the most common way to get somewhere that was more than a walk away. Trains haven't been such a hoity toity thing since the late 19th century at least.
And trains aren't bad where I am, at least within the metro area. Trains between cities in my country (I'm not American) are what need improvement. But for Americans, especially in the blue part of the map in the video, trains need a lot of improvement and rebuilding all around. Trains are better for the environment than cars or planes, and within cities they're cheaper too.
America: Spent like 100 years making and using the railroad to allow faster, easier travel to numerous regions across the continent. We bragged about it, it's a part of our history, we glorify it, entire towns and cities were built around it, we got bigger because of it, etc.
Also America: Makes said 100 years of work and infrastructure obsolete in like a decade or two because the people who make the things that go vroom-vroom wanted to make more money.
US railroads are the most efficient and arguably the most profitable railroads on earth. The entire US economy is 100% dependent on our railroads. Nearly all goods in the US travel by train. We should be proud of it, in fact if it suddenly stopped both the US and Chinese governments would collapse entirely and the world would suffer from widespread famine.
Also America: Creates even faster invention that only requires a few acres of land of the destination and arrival areas to traverse thousand of miles while avoiding terrain by going over it. All while being called backwards. Yes, I speak of the aeroplane.
I think the lack of awareness is a crucial boundary for many Americans on these topics. I was lucky enough to take a vacation to the Netherlands with my family as a kid and I got to experience the sense of peace and enjoyment that comes from walkable environments and not having to worry about cars, but even then, I chalked that up to differences in culture, like different foods or styles of clothing. It's only recently, thanks to videos like this, that I've started to view these inadequacies for what they are: the tangible results of choices made in American urban planning.
What I've learned has propelled me to get more active in my town's government, and although I'm sure not everyone exposed to this perspective will immediately jump on board or decide to become an activist themself, I think continuing to spread information is a good effort towards changing how people see their built environment.
Trains, like every other modes of public transit in America, is stripped up, designed to perform weak, and are forced to compete unfairly with the car
Or with the airlines. But even in Europe, trains find it hard to compete with airlines. For instance, there's now a very good 3.5 hour service between Rotterdam and London, and counting all steps of the journey, it is as fast as air travel and a hell of a lot more comfortable and dignified. But tickets are pricey, and especially on popular days (pre-covid) way more expensive than a plane ride.
@@kaasmeester5903 Yeah. Most of Europe did a big F-up similar to the US in that aviation fuel hasn't been taxed here for ages! And that's pretty much across the entire continent, and just one of several measures that hinder rail and advances air travel. Hopefully some of that changes in the upcoming years, as a number of private operating companies like the Swedish "Snälltåget", Austria's "Westbahn" and Czech "Leo Express" have expressed, like the stringer regulations, high access fees to use the train tracks, language regulations, incompatible signalling and electrification systems, and the lack of a universal ticket booking system for railway operators like the airlines has plenty of, to just name a few.
The car has one major advantage: You can't catch the coronavirus from the guy sitting behind you unless you stupidly invited him into your car. The coronavirus had demonstrated once again that the worst part of public transportation is the rest of the public that rides it.
@@stevenlitvintchouk3131 Not only is transit use dropped because of aversion of sickness, but due to working remotely. However the system should still exist for anyone who still rides, people will eventually come back. Also, what about pedestrian and bicycle? As long as you're not up close and personal with someone and wearing facial protection, you certainly won't get the coronavirus wheeling around on a bicycle- of which have increased in demand as a result of the pandemic by the way. Perhaps we should really consider dumping the car as default.
UNFAIRLY???? Since when is open competition fair??? I suppose next you'll be bitching about how unfair the Erie Canal was treated....SMH.
It's funny that how India has much better inter-city transit than the US (both bus and train), but at least that makes sense because of density. But when Russia has better intercity trains than the US that's when you know it's a problem
Russia built their rail when they were the Soviet Union. That was done deliberately to keep the government in charge.
@@christianlibertarian5488 Unfortunately trams and trolley buses which used to be a staple of life in the Eastern Block are being falling into disrepair and are being shut down in favor for Mini Buses as local government officials push them as cheaper alternatives. In my opinion trams are superior to buses in that while they may not be flexible they are good at getting people where they need to go and can run in pedestrianised areas with only needing two rails put in the ground.
@@REDARROW_A_Personal This is exactly what happened in the US after the War. Busses are apparently cheaper if you ignore the cost of the roadway, but leave the cost of rail maintenance in the trolley budget.
It's not a problem because Americans prefer to have their own vehicle.
Try getting anywhere in India faster than you can cross the same distance in the USA.
Video: "Americans don't understand passenger trains."
Me: "Oh, ok. Please explain it to me."
Video: "Americans don't understand passenger trains."
Me: "Right, you said that already. Anything you wanna add?"
Video: "Americans don't understand passenger trains."
Me: "Ok then, so this 5 minute video doesn't have anything else to say but that?
Video "Americans dont..."
Recursive
He doesn't say he'd explain it. Actually it's pretty clear.
He said they dont understand it, because they have never taken one, or the ones they have were totally terrible.
So they dontnunderstand good transit because they dont have a good connection
My barber was just reminiscing about taking a train from Muncy to Williamsport. I had no idea we used to have a passenger train connecting the two places. He said tons of people didn't have cars when he was a kid and would take it up town for shopping and entertainment. Reminded me of your story of European travel.
Every word you just said is 1000% true. The US has always been car centered since the 40s with suburbanization and highways, which also means that passenger rail has and always will get the bottom of the barrel for government funding. I also can't help but feel that private corporations such as Brightline seem to get proposals done quicker due to lack of political funding debates and opposition with a much larger amount of private funding.
Shift HSR to private corporations
@@qjtvaddict they'll find the same problem that all other passenger rail services not bankrolled by the government find themselves in: passengers don't make bank, cargo does. Always has been, always will be. Passengers have always been advertisements, essentially.
@@TheTrueAdept EXACTLY. Passenger rail in the US went into the shitter when they lost the mail contracts.
@@TheTrueAdept that’s the point
No wonder rail lacks behind, most of the interstate is owned by the government, while most of the rail infrastructure is owned by private businesses. And those are allergic to investments with delay or no return.
The longest train ride in the UK is 785 miles in 13.5 hours. In the US San Diego to Boston is over 84 hours. I'll take a plane!
As the videos says...most Americans have no idea how train works...
You don't need to go from San Diego to Boston on a regular trip.
You use two slow trains vs a plane? Get some figures for high speed trains (ones that go around 300kph), and then that'll be a fairer comparison.
@@mattevans4377 There isn't a high-speed train between San Diego and Boston.
@@EastSqure But if there was, would you take it?
Spending time traveling on trains isn't wasted. You can read, study, sleep, etc. while you travel. Cars aren't really cheaper than a really well designed rail transit system.
Cars are 4x expensive uncomfortable and claustrophobic
@@tanmaysingh267 frfr 2 hrs on a train >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 hrs on a car
I'm lmao that I was like "wait, I live in that blue area...what about the Railrunner?" and then literally two seconds later you went "and yes, I'm looking at you, Railrunner." Fjdsafsdafda! You're so right to discount that train tbh; the schedule is so sparse that I've never been able to take it, as much as I've wanted to. Every time I need to get to Albuquerque to make a flight or get to an event, I have to either give up on the event or get a shuttle ride for like $70 more than the train-because all the trains stop at like 10pm, and don't start until 6:45am or so. One day I hope we'll get some late night trains, but until then this system is useless to me and my schedule.
Honestly, every time I have to go back home (800km from where I live most of the year) for summer, I end up taking the train, even if it's slower and it "costs more" than the plane, for a very simple reason: it doesn't cost more, once I realize I'd have to pay for my luggage to be boarded, it will never pass inspections.
This is so untrue. As some one that actually work for the railroad, so I know a thing or two about this in the Midwest the reason there is not very many commuter trains is the big train companies this side of the Mississippi, BNSF, Union Pacific, Kansas City Southern and CN, will not allow any commuter train development companies in on there turf. In addition to having very little interest in developing it themselves because there is more profit in cargo transit than passenger transit.
That map correlates really strongly with a population density map of the United States. Coincidence?
For a European this is almost unbelievable such a large country and almost no trains
I like the idea of trains but then I started think about it and everything around me is so spread out that a train just would be useless. You would have to put a train in a central location but so many people live in such a wide spread out area you would need a car to get the the central area. Trains for huge swaths if the country dont make sense cause with such a huge country everything is spread out. Unless you live in major cities which millions of people do not, nothing is in walking distances.
@@baronvonjo1929
I've explained this many times over.
I love to ride trains, but they're just not feasible for the modern US and how it's laid out.
Though I'd like a high speed rail on the west coast. If I could get from Seattle to Sacramento in 10hrs instead of 20hrs, I'd stop driving between the two.
Size of a country has no bearing on whether trains are feasible. Population density is the main driver. The fact of the matter is that Europe for the most part is more densely populated than the US.
@@Shadowfax-1980 And this is the correct answer. The United States, especially outside the part of the country that already has high speed rail (the Northeast Corridor), is nowhere near dense enough for passenger rail to really work.
America subsidizes airlines to usually support these routes instead.
Those subsidies are for smaller towns though. Airlines can normally pay for itself, and is the cheaper and more effective option for alot of people.
Here’s an example: your map would have been more interesting is overlaid with a map of population density in the US.
Agreed. I don't think most Europeans understand that our States are the size of their countries. And that we usually don't live in houses that are "shoulder to shoulder" but often have breathing space. When I was growing up we had a house where our closest neighbor was 2 miles away.
@@TheBlankJoker But in less populated areas trains make even more sense. At least connect most major cities in a country
@@ziglaus I don't understand how in less populated areas trains would make more sense? How far am I supposed to walk just to get to a train station or bus stop when my closest neighbor was 3.2 km away.
Most of them are. But they are currently only being used for Freight and not passenger. LA to NY would still be at least a day and a half of traveling by train. Just to connect the East coast to the West coast would be 4,506 km of track just for one route. America and Trains would be a logistical nightmare especially when your going to be going up against cars / trucks.
On all of my family vacations outside of our state, we either flew or drove. Only on one of which we drove were we really on a time crunch. So on the others we would do some extra driving and find some State Parks to go hiking. Or rent a canoe or kayak on a random river. We would find ourselves in places where if you were to take public transport, or even simply stay on all the highways, you would never find yourself there.
@@TheBlankJoker Exactly you can't build rail tracks to every private house in the middle of nowhere. Even a bus would be more efficient in such a context, it could at least visit smaller towns.
thats a problem that your city planners created... suburbia is not sustainable...
we also have people living on the land, that are the people that work there as farmers or miners etc. take a look in google earth into how our citys in europe are built... mostly dense. and thats not bad. in fact, if you life in a multistory multifamily house, the house is better insulated, so it costs you less upkeep, its cooler in summer, warmer in winter, its more safe, the noise reduction of the walls are better, the next park is close and its clean and safe, and there liekely will be childs where your childs can play with, u dont even need to security them, they can go there alone, as well as they can walk to school or kindergarden alone without you beeing in fear.
the next subway, railway, bus station is close, you can walk 5-15 minutes and you are in the store, and within that distance you can choose from like 5 to 200 stores, depending in which area you life in (17 stores in my case, im on edge of city, but with half an hour public ride, i can reach thousands of stores). there is no gun shooting, cause we have social security, if you dont like a neighbour dont talk to him, but you are only a short walk away from the neighbour you like, so helping each other out is easy.
the next hospital or police station is close, if somethings happens, your much safer.
your job is close, you dont have to drive there, so while traveling you can read or play with your phone or whatever you like
All in all the benefits of citys are on the table, and with city i dont talk of sprawls like houston.
of course. one can vastly exaggerate this by building citys like manhattan... thats too much, i agree^^ if you americans just would find the right mean value^^
My city; Tampere in Finland, just got a light rail system, it is great. We do have good connections by rail to other cities. Before we were using busses but that was because the city had still been small. As it expands rapidly it needed a new public transport system.I prefer traveling by train over the bus.
i live in vantaa and i frequently use trains here, because ll going between Vantaa and helsinki by train is so fast, train goes in so many places around finland that i frequently use them to travel i and around from city to city, using car is a waste trains are great... (going to use train again for intercity travel in just 6 more days)
Americans in the blue areas understand intuitively that the high-speed trains will blow right past their small town just like the high-speed pass through the depot. The train CAN'T stop every 30 miles to serve their needs because then it would be a slow-speed train that only COSTS as much as a fast one. The only reason commercial jets are fast is because flyover country is real, and getting to and from airports blows away more hours than some folks spend on road vacations. Buses suck hard, but it's at least theoretically possible for one to deliver you to your door or someone else's door if it had to, (at zero to negative profit). More on this later!
I do like this video and it's great! As someone with autism who likes trains (and trains from other countries), talking about the importance of modern passenger rail travel (high speed & transit) is a very difficult topic to talk about with most Americans. Not everyone's into trains, but the stereotype would be either vintage trains (steam and/or anything from 1950s) or the modern diesel powered freight trains that run all over the North American continent when you talk to someone who doesn't care about rail related public transportation. Even there's people who only heard of the Transrapid Maglev that was proposed to run in places like Las Vegas and Pittsburgh (all were cancelled) that were mentioned in local news and think all high speed trains are Maglevs despite the huge majority of the world's current high speed trains run on normal trackage as regular trains.
I LOVE trains, but passenger rail is NOT cost effective.
I love trains to. I am also semi-autistic. As a kid I used to sit by the tracks and count the cars or name the cars as they went past: "box-CAR, gond-a-LA, tanker-CAR, hopper-CAR, center-BEAM, ca-BOOSE,". I miss those cabooses. See the caboose and waving at it was the height of my life as a 3 year old.
But then I grew up and became educated, and I realized that as much as I loved trains, it no longer made sense to continue to put cabooses on the back of trains or run passenger rail outside of a few closely packed major cities. And if you are autistic, I assume you are also intelligent enough and open minded enough that, if you consider both sides of the arguments without bias you'll realize that.
Let's start with the assumption that people didn't make decisions because they were dumber and more ignorant than you, but because they had information you don't have. Once you accept that proposition, then I think the rest will fall into place.
there’s only really one place where high speed rail can work in the us… northeast megalopolis
@@UserName-ts3sp yup. In fact they have one, accela.
ANd there's a private company, Northeast Maglev, trying to dig a tunnel and implement Japanese SCMaglev for even higher speed trains.
Maglev is really the minimum speed if we wanted to long distance HSR in this country or in Australia or Canada. At the distances involved, wheel on rail is just too slow. And even then you still need airplanes because the maglev can only carry so many people and can only go where there's track built.
As a certified Amtrak foamer. I like this
I am Amtrak foamer as well 😎
Same here, NorCal
Bragging about foaming is not good at all, just so you all know
@@seaboardspastic why not? 😎
@@seaboardspastic shhhhhhhh
The primary advantage that bus has over rail, is that rail is a fixed route system. It can't adapt easily as needs change, while buses can run nearly anywhere, as populations and demands shift around.
german here, and i traveled between cologne and munich a bunch over the last 2 years. the options are:
- autobahn/highway (> 5 hours in a cramped car, if i had a license and a car)
- flying (massively expensive and terrible for the environment)
- high speed rail, ICE (also >5h, but you can stretch your legs, take a nap, or do some work on the way) (also the national railway promises to use clean energy to power them, which is great)
guess what i chose
And your country is a nation of 85 million people crammed into a land area the size of a large American state such as Montana. Rail travel works when the population density serves it.
Well, when CA builds a bullet train from Merced to Bakersfield at a cost of $1B, it's a lot easier to understand.
California completely mismanaged the high speed rail construction. They built a useless segment where it was easiest, but the rail line is not useful without the more difficult urban sections. There was no point in building a section in the middle of nowhere first. What a boondoggle.
@@stevenlochner4619 That was actually the point, politically. By building the useless middle section first, the chances of the whole system getting built is greater. If they started in San Francisco, they would have made it as far as Sacramento and then would have given up.
Every time I hear about US HSR projects they always fail and honestly it feels like a concerted effort as you're telling me no one in the US can build trains that go faster long distance yet US allies can? Like we can go to the Moon...50+ years ago but faster choo choo is just too complicated to build correctly? Suddenly no one knows how budget or manage anything? That seems sus.
I always had a passing interest in passenger trains, and visiting abroad combined with an urban planning course I took really sold me on walkability and (relatively) high-frequency passenger rail. Fortunately it seems that some cities are trying to bring in good bike lanes and grade separation, so the scattered public transit stations are somewhat easier to get to without a car.
Lol as a brit it's cheaper to go by train from my town into the city of Manchester then by car. Traffic is slow so fuel is wasted and parking prices is high so its better to park your car in some 24h carpark in the town for cheap and get a train. Walking is no issue in Manchester as its all close together
I'm from NJ and the moment you said you were coming from New Brunswick to Bordentown I already knew what trains you were taking! Someone in the mid West would have no idea, like you said in your video.
As a person from the blue region, I mainly think of train lines as those stretches where hobo camps linger since the cops can't clear them out due to the camps being on railroad property.
3:10 All the charming little towns and cities in Europe have been around for centuries and their dense development reflects this. Even towns and cities in the US on the Eastern seaboard developed before the automobile are quite walkable and well-served by rail transport: NYC, Philly, Boston and countless small older towns such as Haddonfield in NJ, New Hope, PA, Princeton Twp (in your neck of the woods).
Houston was born in 1842, but it’s the greatest example of American sprawling and car centric cities, so the statement cities were built in car era and so around the car often doesn’t make sense. Cities were rebuilt and changed after ww2, creating new suburbs, tearing down neighborhoods and replacing them with highway interchanges, especially in the inner city. (As an European perspective this is the thing I understand the least, why a motorway running in the middle of a downtown, with historical building that, is not thousands years olds, are at least 100/150 years old).
@@nicknickbon22 I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Houston's population in 1890 was 27,000 people. LA's population was 50,000. NYC's population in 1890 was 2.6 million. I have been to Dallas, which is a similar place. Dallas does have a downtown core (Uptown, McKinney Ave, Deep Ellum) which is pretty walkable. But its greatest growth came about after WW2 and it sprawling nature reflects this car-centric growth. Same with cities such as Los Angeles and Houston.
@@capmidnite
the last sentence is what I wanted to say, US cities were mostly funded before the car era and so it's not correct saying that European cities are not that car dependant because they were funded before the car, beacuse that's valid for us cities too.
I mean, cities grew rapidly in Europe too after ww2, but they didn't end up being so sprawled and car depenent.
@@nicknickbon22Again, let me reiterate. Older American cities on the Eastern seaboard are very walkable and densely populated: Charleston, SC, Boston, NYC, etc. I don't think ANY European city grew in the manner American cities grew like Los Angeles: 1890: 50,000 people to a megapolis in 50 years. NYC in comparison had 2.6 million people already in 1890. Cities such as Houston, Dallas and Los Angeles are classic examples of metros that exploded during the Age of the Automobile, even if they were founded in the horse and buggy era. European cities in contrast have been populous places for centuries, and often limited from sprawling by physical barriers or city walls or rivers.
Many American cities were bulldozed for the car. They're hollowed out shells of what they once were. Many picturesque main streets had buildings demolished to create parking lots. And as a result they turned into soulless streets that provide little value to the town.
American Geography, population, cost of building + maintaining train systems, and politics: all combined to limit the use of trains.
Plus. Train tech the way it is being implemented is kind of old.
Spot on that one of the best parts of being in Western Europe is you’re always just a few hours from most cities in the region, and you can pretty easily and conveniently travel within large cities. For example iirc traveling between Paris and Amsterdam takes almost half as long via high-speed train than it does to drive.
In France I can cycle 15 mins to my local station. Then travel over 1000km in 8 hours to Paris with my bike then cycle other end.
Only issue with this is I have no desire to go to Paris.
I don't think that it's the issue of "Americans don't understand trains."
Rather, it's simply the fact that most don't have a purpose to use them to begin with. Those areas in blue also, coincidentally enough, have low population densities by their nature as (largely) rural and remote regions. Passenger rail in a midwest state - rural Iowa, for example - isn't economically practical, since the low population density means you're going to have to travel a long distance between places to get to the station in the first place. At that point, it's economically better off to simply own a system of transportation. Back during the 19th century, that would have been a horse and buggy. In the 21st century, that's a car. So, as a result, passenger rail is impractical to meet the needs of those regions and, therefore, haven't expanded to them.
By contrast, the areas not shaded in blue have population densities closer to that of Europe, but, even then, the rail systems only extend to areas with high population density (i.e. the major urban centers) because of the same issue of economic viability. This is also why cities often prefer to use their own public bus transit system, since it is economically more viable than passenger rail and can be altered without much a fuss if a development occurs. Case in point, Richmond, Virginia has its own bus metro system - the Greater Richmond Transit Company (GRTC) - that services the nearby communities and the city of Richmond. The reason why is because passenger rail systems in the Metro Richmond area isn't all-that practical for the up-front costs and because Richmond, a city of ~200,000 people, and the surrounding metro area doesn't have the population density to make passenger rail practical. There's also other issues to contend with such as, for example, the historical heritage of the city. In order to lay down something like, for example, a tram system, you'd need to set up the stations, the railway line, and a depot in order to run them, which means finding the land to make that possible, which is already hard when a good portion of the city is littered with historic districts that have strict guidelines about what can and can't be done in the area.
Simply put, the reason why passenger rail has not caught on is because the US - a country with low population density throughout 80-90% of the country - is not like Europe. Only particular regions in the US can operate passenger rail and it not be a colossal expenditure that could meet the demand and be more cost effective (i.e. busses).
I'm not so sure about that. Europe has railroad connections to many small towns.
You take a short-distance local bus to go to the local station, get on a train and ride it for a long distance. If the service is not frequent, you do not even need a second track.
.
When there is a station, a surprising number of people will congregate to it daily.
.
A small train station is little more than a concrete slab. It is not very cheap to build and requires maintenance but so do bus stations, bus depots, roads, etc.
.
Because buses are slower and move less people than trains, their drivers are more expensive. And the buses themselves see more wear and tear. They are also less fuel efficient. So it's not a clear cut what is cheaper to maintain.
.
Building railroads is expensive though. But so are roads, and they have to be regularly resurfaced too.
.
And the thing about zoning restrictions is just another one that needs to be changed to get rid of cardrug dependence.
@@jwhite5008, the thing about European towns is that most are close to one another. Europe was built without railroads to begin with, making the density and nature of town development more suitable towards population density.
Towns were built close enough to one another to make it conducive for walking from one town to another. As a result, the introduction of railway lines meant that they had higher population densities to work with, which is why servicing those towns tends to make enough revenue to justify those costs.
Many American towns were built when trains had already been invented, meaning that the towns in the Midwest ended up being at a greater distance apart from one another; based more along the lines of daily railway stops more than anything else. As a result, the overall population density in those regions is far lower than in Europe and, in the case of many of those towns, the population density has decreased with the advent of industrialization encouraging people to move into the major urban centers.
There’s one final thing to note about all of this: Europe heavily subsidizes its passenger transport system because, even in an ideal condition as Europe, the costs are still insanely high. Additionally, they still run some passenger services to towns that barely see any traffic at all, if not none at all, because of that subsidization.
There’s very little economic incentive to connect up the other 80% because there’s virtually no money to be made from running such a service. Even for Amtrak, running services around there is a colossal sunk cost, since virtually no one would use the service to begin with, making such operations absurdly costly. It simply is not worth the investment for what you get.
@@jwhite5008, if you’re only going to have fifty or a hundred ticket purchases a year from a town, it is far less costly to service the area with a bus than it is to service it with a train, since the operation of a bus out there would be cheaper and would still provide the service to the area. It doesn’t matter if it has low carrying capacity because the ridership numbers is going to be low in the first place.
@@jwhite5008, as for the roads vs. rails argument, the roads already exist in most of those communities in the first place. It’s not the same for the railway lines. In certain areas, they do exist, but not all of them. In order to service them with rail, you’d need a colossal rail building program, which would add further costs to the operation.
At that point, it is simply more economical to run a bus service and pay the costs for maintaining the roads (roads that everyone is using anyways) with a single material that can be recycled regularly (80% of it is recycled). Railways require a lot more to maintain them. Namely, sleepers need to be replaced regularly and the wood for them cannot be recycled. Additionally, ballast has to be produced, since old ballast cannot be recycled. The only recyclable material is the rails themselves, which, unlike asphalt, you cannot tear up and recycle while still having road operations still occur. The costs for repaving roads is going to be significantly cheaper than maintaining railway lines and require less materials inputted into the operation.
@@MatthewChenault Europe is generally desner than the US but not *that* dense in most places. Simply able to be walking between towns and villages doesn´t mean you can easily reach shopping or amenities. Trains and buses are quite important in rural areas.
And here I am.. a European that doesn’t even has a driving license..
me neither, dont need one, dont want one, driving is too stressfull, especially in and around cities
@@certaindeath7776 its usefully for going to country side tho
@@ultimatesexmachine6665 there are 200 cars in my street, of which 100 are parking there all the time. the 3 times a year i actually need a car, i borrow one + driver. and if i wouldnt know or hate or fear my neighbours, i would do car sharing.
car ownership is a lot of bother, and a sizeable constant drainage in ur wallet.
i can work less for not owning a car, and since i have love hate relationship with work, i prefere to work less, and have less need to drive me away^^
@@certaindeath7776 "Nooo it's too stressful!"
Jesus, grow a pair europeeons.
@UCjqtoM6OqktyF6NKXqhyHbg You can fuck off, they are right, it's stressful, especially when you have to share the road with horrible drivers and people who shine their high beams behind you while tailing you in a city or town.
This channel is perfect. A ton of videos about train, usually with vulfpeck in the background, AND great intro memes also using the tf2 soundtrack? Its perfect.
Unlike the majority of Americans you wish to talk about here, I do understand passenger trains. I understand it from many different standpoints. For starters, despite being a professional driver, meaning I have a class A CDL and have had many years and lots of specialized training in driving, I do enjoy riding on trains. I also have unique experiences of riding on many different types for different reasons. I even have experience riding high speed rail, and in my opinion a much better system than what the Acela could ever be. That being said, trains have a huge number of drawbacks that you either are blissfully unaware of or feel they do not take away from the positives. When I used to live in Northern Virginia, I used to rely on a commuter train system called VRE or Virginia Railway Express. They had a fairly robust network featuring 2 lines that took an estimated 25,000 cars off the roads per day. All the cities that had stations paid into the system to get that station and it was primarily funded by tickets from government and contract workers going to and from the Alexandria, Arlington, and DC areas. It was nice to take the train to and from work because it meant I could relax and not have to deal with so much traffic. I was also fortunate that the place I worked was fairly close to the station. However, VRE was very open about their flaws, which allowed an inside look into the operations and what problems that they had to overcome. For starters, they didn't own any of the tracks they traveled on. Not a single foot of rail outside of their end terminals was their rail. This meant that their schedules had to fit into the schedules for Amtrak, CSX, and Norfolk Southern, the ones that did own the tracks on their lines. This area encompassed the Northeast corridor, one of the busiest logistics areas in the country. The 2nd issue was storage capacity. The system ran mostly one direction in the morning and back in the evening. During the downtime, they would store the locomotives and cars at Union Station which also served as a hub for Amtrak and another line coming from Maryland. This meant they couldn't add more trains, train cars, or increase capacity without finding additional storage locations along the route and then would have to deal with the schedules of all of the track owners in order to add more capacity to their trains. Most rail systems in the country have to deal with these exact problems in order to survive. Couple this with trains becoming filled with passengers from earlier stations means that fewer and fewer passengers can get onto the train further downstream and you can see the kinds of problems that can impact trains.
Awww, poor Music City Star. Hes trying his best!
Nice to see you here, how are you
I am a railfan, and I know it mainly as the one railroad line that is still operating an old EMD F40PH locomotive from the Pacific Surfliner!
To make matters worse, it's been renamed the "WeGo Star" ...
I'm from Long Island, NY. And I could honestly say, without the LIRR, we ain't shit. I wish more Long Islanders understood that.
First mistake is that you're in NY State... Rail is the least of their problems.
@@aabb55777 I would love for there to be a bridge to Connecticut, and with a train that goes along the cars. But since Long Island is one big Karen meme where NIMBYism rules the day. It’ll be a while before we ever see something like that.
Why a bridge? Why not a ferry system?
@@somebonehead, We have ferries, they're just really expensive, even if you go without a car.
@@aabb55777 the only issue is that people in Connecticut wouldn’t benefit from a project they funded. People in Long Island Have faster transit, People in Connecticut will use it for practically nothing.
It is literally cheaper to fly to the city over than take Amtrak in my case
Californias experience with high speed rail was a complete disaster. People were pitched the idea of a high speed rail line, and EVERYONE voted. It was pitched as costing 10 Billion. Then after getting approved, cost estimates increased almost immediately and as of Feb 2020 was about 80 Billion and politicians still say it was voter approved. No one trusts the government to build projects like that anymore.
Why should I pay twice as much (much more if traveling with others) so that I can wait for a train to meet my schedule so that I can get someone in a longer amount of time than it takes for me to just drive there? Then how do I get place to place when I get there? Makes absolutely no sense.
STOP USING YOUR BRAIN
go to a european country and see how train service is different from that, there. then you might understand.
Any decent train service has schedule set up so that trains are at least every hour, and often (3-4 times in an hour) on more frequented lines. So very often it is so that you just go to the train station, wait 15-20 minutes and ride. If you have a bicycle it's even more convenient, since you can ride the bicycle to the train station, take it with you onto the train, and after you get out of the train, ride the bicycle again to your final destination. At least that's how it works in Europe.
@@0raj0 in the US, places that have Intercity trains at all often only have one train a day. Commuter lines may have one train an hour on a busy route. I was amazed to visit a city whose two transit train lines had trains on about 10 minute intervals.
@@0raj0 Oh here in the US they could easily build intercity trains and run 1-4 of them an hour for routes of 300 miles/500km.
The problem is they'd be mostly empty all the time.
Train advocates like to think there are sinister, well moneyed interests keeping the US from a glorious rail future that is desired by a large majority of people. The stone cold reality is very very few people here actually want to ride trains, and thus that is the reason that passenger trains do not exist in any meaningful sense here.
In October of 2019. I was moving between New Carrollton MARC and New Carrollton Metro near the D.C beltway. An Aclea was moving quite fast next to me and it was just like a plane right next to me and it caught me off guard, I’m not sure if it was 150 mph but I can see I am one of the few who experienced such a thing in person.
Trains can run up to 125 mph in that area. I remember railfanning New Carrollton a few times (I have videos on my channel if you want to check it out) and every time they come by at speed it’s an exhilarating feeling
I rode the China HSR between Hong Kong and Guangzhou in 2006, it is fairly flat and straight. A six to eight land interstate style highway parallels the train tracks. Periodically, I would see someone in a Ferrari or a Lambo pass the train, slow down and pass it again.
We have trains in my area. They are used for hauling agricultural crops to processing plants in the cities. We have low speed rail. Due to track conditions, the speed limit of the trains is 25 mph on the best tracks. Some places it is only 15 mph. There used to be passenger trains, but those discontinued service long before my time.
I'm late to the comment section here, but I figured that I should note that Nebraska is finally taking a serious look at connecting Lincoln and Omaha with high speed rail. This may seem small, as the drive between Lincoln and Omaha is only around 45 minutes, but it's the first step to connecting major cities throughout the state that would otherwise take hours. I know it probably doesn't mean too much, seeing as it's in the studying stage right now, but I found some hope for midwestern HSR from that news.
Can relate. I am from germany, had someone from LA over here. It made him hate the fact that he has to drive in the US.
LA is NOT representative of the rest of the US.
@@johnp139 Did i say that?
@@johnp139 no part of the US is representative of the whole, dummy
The first thing they’ll say about trains is that it’s not “freedom”.
Ironic when their definition of "freedom" includes being forced to use the car because I don't have the freedom to choose how I want to travel.
@@wadewilson6628 no, the idea of building society around owning one expensive appliance simply isn't it
@@wadewilson6628 Ah yes. Freedom: Noun - The state of being forced to own and use a car because your shitty little midwestern town refuses to design for people, instead mandating a miserable experience for everyone who lives there.
Nothing says "freedom" less than being able to spend like 20 bucks to travel between Richmond and Washington DC, avoiding the highway where I totalled my car 4 years prior.
I feel so restricted when I can get on a comfortable seat, nap for 2 hours, and get to my friends house.
to have to drive a car isn't freedom; Freedom is the option to choose your car or another mode of transportation
I personally think that more American Cities could use rapid transit networks or subways.
I always go to a train stop about 15 minutes from my school here in Holland when I have to go back home.
Let me tell you, the sudden gush of wind and trembling of the ground you feel once a really fast train passes by is something you just have to experience once in your life.
My wife's family lives in SC, not far from an Amtrak station and it's unfortunate that a train trip to visit us in DC would take over 9 hours. It's no faster than driving and it's not like there are an incredible amount of stops along the way. Would love for rail service to be faster
Whilst the track infrastructure is still owned by the rail freight companies, intercity and interstate passenger rail services will be at the mercy of the those freight companies who will keep priroritise their train movements and infrastructure for their freight operations at the expense of of passenger rail services. What the federal government needs to do is to acquire all the rail infrastructure, signaling and train control/s from the rail freight companies, upgraded the infrastructure and have a national and intrastate open access 'not for profit' rail infrastructure network for all passenger and freight rail operators to use.
I used to take the Crescent from the upstate to the DC area quite frequently. I was fine with it being basically the same amount of time as driving since I didn't have to deal with I-85 or I-77. But I do wish it was some time other than the middle of the night, both ways.
@@VidClips858 yeah, the crescent leaves NYC in the afternoon, and NOLA in the morning only, so the Carolinas end up very late at night or early in the morning
If it's as fast as driving, the train doesn't do too bad. You can travel relaxed, without worrying about traffic, speed control, keeping an eye on your fuel level... If you have a meeting to prepare, you can do so, or you can just sleep a little, entertain the kids, etc.
Faster trips are certainly welcome, but trains have more attractions than speed.
@@barvdw I don't think the trip length would be such a problem if the trains ran at somewhat convenient times. For my wife's family, the closest station has only one train that comes at 445AM. The next closet station is 50 miles away and the trains run at 11AM and 11PM. It's doable, for sure, but alot of people would fly instead
This channel really gives NJ some love and I'm all for it.
I used to take the commuter train to go to school from my suburb to downtown chicago and it was honestly the most stressful part of my day. Only upside was not getting stuck in traffic the whole way there.
Why must stressful part of day?
I sent my girlfriend on amtrak last year, straight from chicago to austin, one train, and it was the worst experience of her life.
the train stopped multiple times throughout the night and they had to wait 4 hours for another train of cattle to pass first.
apparently amtrak does not own the train tracks, private companies do and 100 passengers have to wait for another company moves cows for profit.
the train was delayed so many times and ended up being so late for a one day trip, north of dallas everyone was told to get off the train and onto a bus and that is how they finished the last 4 hour drive of their trip, greyhound.
th-cam.com/video/lKHYQ4ptA8Q/w-d-xo.html
Trains must make a comeback. I am lucky enough to live in the Northeast but we need to get the rest of the country back on track.
People need to use their voices instead of just sitting back and understanding what the problem is
There is passenger service across the country. The real answer is, why would anyone want to ride a train to a faraway destination when a flight could solve it in a fraction of time.
@@AbelG8781 if that's the case, then why hire lobbying industries to keep railraods from progressing?
@@BulletTrainProductions idk ask the gubernur
You realize, for a large portion of the US, railroad passenger service is not economically viable and never will be. Any money to "get the rest of the country back on track" would be better used to improve the NEC ( where it does make sense ).
Compare this to Switzerland, where even some villages in the Alps with a few hundret inhabitants have a trainstation with service every hour daily.
Good for them. A tiny country the size of VT/NH with a population of 8.5 million.
@@capmidnite shut up Houston gets 3 trains a week
@@ekvedrek houston doesn't have anything nearby to justify high speed passenger trains. Everything is 1500 miles away, hence aircraft.
@@neutrino78x
It costs 20 times as much to transport by plane than to transport by train.
@@capmidnite bruh it's twice the size. Also, vermont has extremely low population density for its size. You should compare it to Ohio or Louisiana
Video: "Americans don't understand trains"
Self: "Video doesn't understand Midwest America"
salt lake city is a godsend in transportation. that little tiny void in the middle of the west... bless you, frontrunner
I’m European and I took a train from nyc to Washington DC kind of expecting it to be heaving but the entire passenger car was empty. This was back in 2018 I was so shook.
Because nobody actually takes the train in America. Planes serve the exact same purpose but are faster and cheaper, or people just drive.
That's cuase no one wants to ride passnager trains in the US.
The only poeple that think we need it are train nuts trying to force trains on us cuase they think we need it.when we know exactly what we need due to living in the US.
I only been on Amtrak to get to vacation, I rode it twice.
@@blackhole9961 planes aren't faster, door to door.
@@LMB222 and neither are trains.
Me, who lives in a city that has 3 different local train systems, a bus system, some ferries and you need only one ticket for each one of these:
“Interesting”
NYC I'm guessing . . . .. and average rent is $3,500. While average rent in car-oriented city such as Dallas or Atlanta is under $1500.
@@capmidnite sorry, wrong continent.
@@capmidnite and as far as I’m aware, NYC only has a subway train system.
@@deadlineuniverse3189 Well, whatever. Not sure why you are being so coy about where you live.
@@deadlineuniverse3189 NYC has the MTA (subway system, BTW one of the few in the world that has dual tracks for each direction and runs 24 hours), LIRR (suburban commuter rail), PATH (rapid transit between NJ/NY), NJ Transit (commuter heavy rail) and Amtrak (heavy passenger rail). All of the except Amtrak are local in the sense they serve NYC and the surrounding commuter areas.
Nice vid! Cheeky bit of vulfpeck in the background there, love to see it.
I think the main reason is that the US government built the Interstate Highway System, and also most places have problematic zoning laws. Between the zoning laws and the government-funded highway system, cities have huge incentives to be car-friendly to cater to suburban/exurban populations that will always own cars. Most countries that have extensive train systems don't have government-funded highways that go literally everywhere, or strict zoning laws that result in the creation of low-density single-family homes that exist largely isolated from commercial and industrial areas. On top of that, there are airline subsidies for rural communities to receive air service. So basically, our government chose to build highways and subsidize airline operation in rural areas, and in that kind of environment, it's hard to justify going to all the trouble of building trains now, when the cities are already designed for cars, the suburbs are built out, the airlines exist in rural areas, and the highways are already built and maintained. There's also Greyhound service running on the existing infrastructure that gets most people where they need to go. The system isn't perfect, but it doesn't work poorly enough to justify scrapping everything and starting over. It's really more a matter of the fact that when it comes to infrastructure, your decisions have lasting consequences, people come to depend on the status quo, and it limits what can be done later. It might be possible to have some commuter rail in dense urban areas, with people parking their cars and riding downtown, but the main form of transportation within suburbs and between major cities will likely always be cars and buses. I think the most practical thing to do to reduce the number of cars on the road will always be the same old boring suggestions... incentivize carpooling, improve existing bus systems, and just make it so people can work and shop from home in the suburbs as much as possible without having to drive into the city more than necessary.
I legit just want a place I can go outside and live near things without driving to like 3 detached locations 45 minutes away.
I had to go to LA recently, and holy hell did that suburban hellscape cement my disdain for anything related to urban planning here
LA like every other major city in the world does have public transit.
@@neutrino78x LA's public transport sucks shit because everyone there insist on having a damn car. I've never seen a city so tightly condensed and yet everyone feels the need to drag a 2-ton box with them everywhere they go, to the point that the public transit's only advantage over the car is that you don't have to drive.
LA has pretty good transit
As a Canadian I understand trains perfectly well. It's an expensive way to spend three days traveling to the next city.
Finally, someone gets it!
yep its fucking expensive. Its nice, but who in their right minds would take it.
I live in vancouver though, and the skytrain we have here is pretty nice and hella usefull. Much better than the bus.
Its 100% worth the investment for our city. Could be because im a teenager and dont have a car, but we litterally never have any traffic problems here.
Canadian public transport in general is quite good for North American standards, but when compared to other places such as Europe and Asia, its quite mediocre. The actual railways which run through the country (I'm looking at you, Via Rail) are absolute shit and sometimes worse than American railroads.
I live in the UK and the mere fact I can walk onto a train at any station and get off it at any station without having to do anything more than flash a railcard is so normal to me I can't imagine living in a city where I can't access everything via Train.
Only issue is privatisation in the UK caused huge pricing issue. Which when compared France is much cheaper.
when u said about "dumb proposals" i was expecting to see hyperloop
I have quite often considered travel by train when I am going somewhere. However, the cost is typically as much as flying, quite a bit more than just driving, slower, and the added downside is not having a means of travel when I get there.
I have used the D.C. Metro system quite a bit as it eliminates having to park in the city. I have also traveled from Washington D.C. to New York by train it it was very relaxing. Although it seems that eastern route runs through the industrial sides of towns and is not very scenic.
I have also taken a Greyhound bus between Pittsburgh and D.C. for a fraction of the cost it would have been to drive. It did take 2 hours longer, but I slept most of that.
I looked into taking a train to Tennessee and found... well you just can't get there from here on rails.
I would imagine extensive highway systems and inexpensive gasoline makes it terribly hard for passenger trains to compete. Especially into the heart of the Mid-West were there just are not that many towns to generate revenue.
Even in Europe train travel is way more expensive than flying. People say it is because trains are more comfortable, but I am not so sure when they are also a lot slower.
@@ligametis Once you factor in the time it takes to drive to/from the departure and arrival airports usually the amount of time it takes is much closer than you'd think. On a train you go city center to city center (or, in a mature system, you can also board/disembark intercity trains at suburban stations) whereas airports are built way out on the urban periphery. Additionally if you live farther out from an urban center, you don't have the luxury of just driving to the suburbs. You have to drive to another city before you even get on the plane, even if that means driving an hour or two in the opposite direction as your eventual destination. With trains you can catch one at your village/town station and just go. You might be halfway to your destination at 120mph before you even reach the nearest airport at 60-70mph
Trains are not the best option for long distance travel, but for close to medium they are vastly superior. For example, I usually take a plane to go from Venice to Bari (800+ km) because the train can cost three times as much and it's way slower, but from Venice to Milan there is little difference in cost and time between train and plane once you account boarding and check-in, and with the train you can actually bring whatever you want in the luggage.
@@KyrieFortunequality trains are good for around 150-450km in my experience. Less and bus is just as good, more plane is cheaper and faster. Also in many areas train connections in most places are way below "good", they are at best just "fine"
@@ligametis Even for less than 150km. Regional train lines are really good for fast travel in a same urban area. I for example have a train station near where I live that's 8min away (using regional trains) from the city centre of the metropolis.